If you didn't see his other E-mail.. <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0072465360>
The book I have is located here: <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201547090> But, due to its age, it does not seem to be available any more. ( As a random note, it seems that Hal Helms posted a review of the above book). It was (perhaps still is) unique in that it tries to concentrate on theory, not language dependent. At 11:09 AM 7/11/2002 -0500, you wrote: >Which book is that you're referring to, or can you recommend a solid OO >design book? Seems like a lot of crap out there. > >Adam. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 9:55 AM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: RE: Component Calls: What would you do? > > > > > > Generally speaking, CS programs tend to teach programming using C++, > > which has both constructors and destructors. However, most programs do > > try to teach the concepts separately from the language. From > > my OO text > > book I see the following... > > > > The object takes responsibility for everything that happens > > to it, from > > the cradle to the grave. At its birth, a special member > > function called > > a constructor, is called, and at its demise, a second member function > > called a destructor is called. > > > > Matt Liotta > > President & CEO > > Montara Software, Inc. > > http://www.montarasoftware.com/ > > V: 415-577-8070 > > F: 415-341-8906 > > P: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 9:04 PM > > > To: CF-Talk > > > Subject: RE: Component Calls: What would you do? > > > > > > At 06:59 PM 7/10/2002 -0700, you wrote: > > > > > > >Remember that when you are taught traditional programming, you are > > > >taught to understand basic concepts of programming that > > are language > > > >independent. Further, you are taught how these different > > independent > > > >concepts are implemented differently in different languages. This > > > >enables you as a programmer to easily move from language > > to language > > by > > > >simply learning new syntax, not entirely new concepts. > > This wouldn't > > be > > > >possible if each language used the same terms for different things. > > > > > > This is a very good point. I believe the most important thing you > > (or > > > someone) had said about constructors vs "code in a CFC that > > isn't in a > > > method" is that constructors are a method. By definition, code we > > have > > > been calling constructor for a CFC is not in a method. > > > > > > I'm thinking back to my schooling and I don't remember > > being taught > > > about > > > constructors in a language-independent manner. My OO > > textbook, which > > > discusses four programming languages (Smalltalk, C++, Object Pascal, > > and > > > Objective C) only references constructors in regards to C++, which > > makes > > > me > > > think that they may not be part of the other languages, which means > > they > > > are not automatically inherent in the paradigm. If that is true, it > > > shoots > > > holes in your above argument. > > > > > > But, I haven't done enough OO design / programming (Other than > > limited > > > Java) to make that judgement. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Jeffry Houser | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Need a Web Developer? Contact me! > > > AIM: Reboog711 | Phone: 1-203-379-0773 > > > -- > > > My CFMX Book: > > > <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0072225564/instantcoldfu-20> > > > My Books: http://www.instantcoldfusion.com > > > My Band: http://www.farcryfly.com > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
